Report Comment to a ModeratorOur Moderators review all comments for abusive and offensive language, and ensure comments are from Verified Users only.Please report a comment only if you feel it requires our urgent attention.I understand, report it.Cancel

"[We] have begun the process of re-evaluating how such additional game content is delivered in the future," the post reads.

"As this process has only just commenced in the past month or so, there will be some titles, where development began some time ago and that are scheduled for release in the coming months, for which we are unable to make changes to the way some of their post release content is delivered."

Svensson highlighted Dragon's Dogma as the most prominent example of a game that will fall under the publisher's prior approach.

Customer complaints regarding on-disc DLC surfaced following the launch of Street Fighter X Tekken. Hackers discovered 14 characters locked on the disc, which were intended to be released as DLC at a later date.

Capcom initially claimed that it saw no distinction between varieties of DLC beyond the delivery mechanism, but the subsequent furore resulted in Capcom being downgraded by the Better Business Bureau.

I think DLC should be made if the success of an already complete game warrents it. It really sucks to pay 60$ for a game and have to pay extra to play portions of it. It also sucks when developers have day one DLC instead of including it on the disc... For free... thank you capcom...

I am paying 60$ for the damn game already.

I think that when a developer makes a game it should be as complete of an expirience as possible. I was gutted and absolutly furiouse when I heard about the Tekken x Street fighter DLC. Lucky I did not purchase the game. I learned from my expirience with both street fighter IV, resident Evil 5 and Marvel vs Capcom. Shortly after marvel vs capcom was released, they release ultimate MvC. Ive pretty much lost my faith in CAPCOM, and i very much want to play dragon dogma, but if they are going to use their DLC tricks on me to get me to pay 90+$ for a game then.... Capcom you can really go screw yourself and your games.

Now a days I usually wait a while when games come out, I see what DLC comes out and wait it out to see what the company decides to do. I usually pay full price for GOTY or Ultimate editions for a game. Excellent Bundles were border lands, fallout 3, Mortal kombat, little big Planet and Dragon Age origens ultimate editions.

I really hate when companies fragment the games using DLC, I hate reaching a point in a game or not having a certain feature available because I have to pay additional for it.

I think DLC is fine when a game released and is so succesful, that gamers just want to see more, long after the games released and after gamers have played the crap out of it. If thats the case then I guess DLC is fine.

I played the crap out of Saints row the 3rd, started it over again, kept playing and was very happy when the DLC was announced. And rather then make a sequel to the game, they announced an expansion which im happy about. Its almost enough content as the original game for a lower price.

I also think content is important, if its jsut a character or weapon screw that, but if its an expansion thats almost like a new game, I may cling to that. i was mad at Mass effect DLC, i really felt it should have been part of the original game. it was just a character and mission, but that character had alot of information and backstory that I found important to the main story. the prothean had alot of info on story, lore and events of the reaper invasion. i felt cheated with that one. Without it, it felt a chunk of the mass effect story was taken away. And at 10$ i felt cheated for something that should have been included in the game. I felt it was essential to the story. I feel most DLC should not be essential.

Im just throwing different views on the topic, both were DLC can work and shouldent be used. But Im almost done with CAPCOM. Their games end up costing you way more then 60$

I like day one DLC, it intergrates better into the main game feels more important than some superficial inconsequential sidequest that gets bolted on months after release. In my opinion for story based single player games its very important to release DLC while players are still engaged with the narative.

I really don't understand the problem. You think if the DLC content is not on the disc then it really makes any difference what-so-ever to the development plan? It just means you will have to download the content rather than unlock.

You will still pay the same amount of money for the same amount of game whether or not the DLC is on the disc or off the disc.

What ticks me off is that they use DLC to make you pay more for a game. Im not fine with fine with paying 70$-90$ for a game. They use DLC in a way to get more from consumers. If thats the case, then sell me the game at a reduced price 40$ and the DLC for 20$, but capcom expects people to pay over 60$ for their games. ME... Im almost done with em.

Im sure street fighter vs tekken is a great game, but I find it insulting when you pay money for an incomlete expirience its more of a business thing than a real development need. And if I pay premium price for a game i want a complete expirienced not a half-assed one.

if a company wants to sell extra content for its game then may I suggest they sell an expansion disk... instead of ripping the customer off with selling them content already mastered on the original disk...

Tamir, the problem is simultaneous development. If you are developing DLC alongside the main content (I understand it makes it easy from a development viewpoint), then bake it into the costs of the overall development.

I like what Rick stated in the beginning....that DLC should be developed as it is warranted from success.

If you're planning "DLC", you develop it with the main content but don't allocate the costs as part of main development, slap it onto the shipped disc and then demand extra money for this day 1 content that is already on a disc you "own"....that's a problem.

Try buying a book only to have Simon and Schuster hit you up at the book store telling you that if you want to read the addendum that starts on page 460 you have to pay up a few dollars extra.

Or you buy a Blu-ray movie but Sony locks up some disc content and demand payment to see the rest.

Remember when this used to be known as unlockable characters that were achieved by meeting some in game goal? Monetizing the same exact thing makes people you look at you with disdain. That's not a good way to build customer relations. Take a concept we used to enjoy as a bonus and now you want us to pay for it (even though we did by buying the disc to begin with)?

If its on the disc its not really DLC... i dont know why people call it DLC... I guess its now Disk locked content. I dont feel its even a real game development/production need. I see it more of a business trend to get more money out of consumers. This is what makes me mad.

And as with day 1 Down loadable content, if its developed along side the main product using the same game assets and to be released at the same time as the main game, why the hell wont they include it with the main game. I dont buy it.

Capcom i only have Two words for you: "Asura's Wrath". To continue the story please insert 7 dollars.

I dont care how good the game is. Tekken vs street fighter is a good game and so will Dragon Dogma, but I think I will pass. Enjoying the hell out of many other games.

It's about sustainable development, providing an income tail. How many studios have gone out of business based on one failure? They've been saying for ages the costs for creating games has spiraled yet, the cost of a game at retail has stayed pretty static.

The developers basically have 3 options, sell less game, charge more or sell more. DLC is a hybrid of the first 2 where the consumer has the choice of just the core game or pay the extra for extra content. I think this is best course of action as fans can get content that would otherwise be cut

Try buying a book only to have Simon and Schuster hit you up at the book store telling you that if you want to read the addendum that starts on page 460 you have to pay up a few dollars extra.

Or you buy a Blu-ray movie but Sony locks up some disc content and demand payment to see the rest.

@Jim. Your examples, I'm afraid, don't really work. A game is a complete experience for the base price. You don't need the extra content in order to take part and complete that experience.

Let me turn your examples on their head. You can buy this standard soft back book... OR if you pay a little extra you can have the hardback with added colour illustrations.

You can buy this standard Blu-ray/DVD... OR you can pay a little extra for this version with all this extra added bonus content.

Both of those examples appear in the real world and yet no one really complains about them.

Now one can argue that these both add stuff and that Capcom is trying to achieve the same effect by removing content instead. Whether that is true or not I'm not in a position to say and if that's the way they are doing it then that is obviously wrong. But I'm arguing for the case where bonus content is created but is still on the disc.

Anybody who thinks DLC is not, or should not be, thought about during initial development is clearly delusional.

Sometimes I just wish that DLC would be made avaliable just for adding in game patches to fix game breaking bugs and to add in NEW characters into an existing game.

But when companies start to withheld content on day one when it was already completed, or even try to force us to get to a point in the game and then DLC the ending, I would be really disappointed if that happens next gen.

Absolutely agree. I bought Street Fighter X Tekken - the Limited Edition no less even after the uproar about the on-disc DLC simply because I'm a huge fan of the series. It did sting to pay the high price knowing full well that Capcom was shafting its fans by forcing them to pay for content that was already on the disc. In hindsight, I probably shouldn't have bought the game just to spite Capcom for their arrogance. It appears others have done the same as sales of SF X Tekken are in the crapper.

You mention SF4 then SSF4... yeah I was pissed when they came out with another "version" which really could have been DLC. I'm really thinking I should know better...

Let this be a lesson to developers. Saints Row, Alan Wake, Grand Theft Auto all came up with DLC - TRUE DLC which enhances the game after the initial success has been made.

Alot of times, as with Mass Effect 3 it feels a developer is withholding game content, to charge extra for it. I still stand on the fact that DLC should be available depending on the games success or be non essential to the original vision of the game as with Infamouse 2 vampire expansion or the Read Dead Redemption Zombie expansion. I very much liked Saints Row 3 and am very much looking foward to the expansion which is basically another full game.

But alot of games such as bullet storm, mass Effect 3, asuras wrath, marvel vs crapcom, street fighter vs tekken and even mortal kombat, street fighter 4, those expiriences feel broken. You Feel you have an incomplete product when you were good enough to spend 60$ on the product already.

Like I previosly said. i dont see it as a deadline, production or development need. To me its more of a business trend to juice more money from the consumer.

I liked it when atlus said there will be no DLC for Dark Souls. So far they kept there word. The product feels complete and polished. Its only recieving new content for its PC release. And at this point I wouldnt mind if they make it as a DLC because they already profited on the game and the price has already gone down to $40 at retail.

I said, "Try buying a book only to have Simon and Schuster hit you up at the book store telling you that if you want to read the addendum that starts on page 460 you have to pay up a few dollars extra.

An addendum is not a necessary portion of a story. It's supplementary or an appendix to a story. My point was imagine having to pay extra to read the appendix of a story after you've bought the book (which already contains the appendix).

Same thing with my second example.

As for Limited Edition DVD's or Blu-ray's, that's not the same thing at all. In fact, doesn't the video game industry already do that with their own version of limited edition games? So what you are telling me is that a video game with on disc "DLC" is actually a gimped Limited Edition game?

Considering all that, why not remove the extra steps, the consumer confusion, the miscommunication, the secrecy, the deceit and just raise the price of the damn game $5 and have it all unlocked to begin with? You get your extra money and the consumer gets the full product.

And if you're marketing department is scared of what will happen if a game has a $65 price tag, don't develop the extra content.

In a lot of cases some of the DLC is going to be done at the same times as the core of the game. If you segregate DLC until after the core game is done, there is a chance that you need to alter the core game to accommodate the DLC.

Additionally, it's an easier path through certification submitting DLC and the core game at the same time.